Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

liabilitystatuteappealsummary judgmentsustained
plaintiffappealsummary judgmentwill

Related Cases

Braga v. Genlyte Group, Inc., 420 F.3d 35
View Case »
Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 218, 885 N.E.2d 176, 855 N.Y.S.2d 412, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,958, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 02081
View Case »
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 723 F.3d 690, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,185
View Case »
Kambury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 185 Or.App. 635, 60 P.3d 1103, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,486
View Case »
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685, 131 S.Ct. 2630, 180 L.Ed.2d 637, 2011 A.M.C. 1521, 79 USLW 4629, 32 IER Cases 609, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7717, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9212, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1197
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Coleman v. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. ex rel. State, 347 Or. 94, 217 P.3d 651

Facts

Bradley and Bonnie Coleman were camping at Tugman State Park when Bradley rode his bike off the end of a bridge and sustained injuries. They alleged that the state was negligent in maintaining the ramp at the end of the bridge. The state moved for summary judgment, claiming that the campers' claims were barred by recreational immunity, arguing that the only fees charged were for campsites and not for general park access.

The uncontested facts that give rise to the issue before us are as follows. Plaintiffs Bradley and Bonnie Coleman were camping at William M. Tugman state park (Tugman Park) when Bradley rode his bike off the end of a bridge and suffered personal injuries. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Coos County Circuit Court, alleging that the state negligently had failed to maintain a ramp at the end of the bridge and therefore was liable for Bradley's injuries and Bonnie's loss of consortium.

Issue

Whether the state was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682 and ORS 105.688 given that it charged a fee for camping at Tugman Park.

The issue before us is whether the state demonstrated on summary judgment that it qualified for recreational immunity as a landowner that permitted the public to use its land for recreational purposes under ORS 105.682 and that '[made] no charge for permission to use the land,' as that phrase is used in ORS 105.688 (2)(a).

Rule

A landowner is immune from liability for injuries arising from recreational use of its land if it makes no charge for permission to use the land, as stated in ORS 105.688 (2)(a).

A landowner is immune from suit for injuries that arise out of the recreational use of its land when the owner 'permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes[.]' ORS 105.682 (1). However, that immunity applies only if the landowner 'makes no charge for permission to use the land[.]' ORS 105.688 (2)(a).

Analysis

The court analyzed the definitions of 'charge' and 'land' under the relevant statutes, concluding that the camping fee charged by the state constituted a charge for permission to use the land. The court reasoned that the state could not claim recreational immunity because it had charged for camping, which is a recreational purpose, thus forfeiting its immunity regardless of the specific activity that led to the injury.

In this case, the state conceded that it charged a fee to camp at Tugman Park. A person moves over and on the land to camp on it, and camping is a recreational purpose. Therefore, the state made a charge for permission to use Tugman Park and thus forfeited recreational immunity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the state was not entitled to recreational immunity due to the camping fee charged.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Who won?

The Colemans prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the state forfeited its claim to recreational immunity by charging a fee for camping.

The state charged a fee to camp at Tugman Park. As campers, plaintiffs were entitled to use all of Tugman Park, including its bike trails. As previously explained, having charged for 'permission to use' its park, the state forfeited recreational immunity even though plaintiff was injured while engaged in a recreational use—bicycling—that was not the use that was the basis for the charge—camping.

You must be